Back to the Hobby Protection Act – Please.
1 1

382 posts in this topic

9,083 posts
I think you may have missed the point - unless you are saying it cannot get any worse, so there is no reason to be cordial.

 

I think I have been incredibly cordial. :) I think this thread has largely been both civil and relaxed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
630 posts
I think you may have missed the point - unless you are saying it cannot get any worse, so there is no reason to be cordial.

 

I think I have been incredibly cordial. :) I think this thread has largely been both civil and relaxed.

 

No, I do not agree.

You have chosen words and phrases which are intentionally inflammatory (and false).

 

Such as:

 

Describing my activities as "brazen";

 

"Mr. Carr is above the law. There really is nothing more to be said.";

 

Referring to me as one of the "individuals that try to 'lawyer' their way around the rules ";

 

"The double standard is yet another one of Dcarr's fantasies";

 

Telling my "supporters" to "Keep drinking the Kool-Aid";

 

Characterizing this discussion with "I think I'm done with this lunacy";

 

"Why help him [dcarr] out and give him any more free advice at this point? If anything, you are only alerting him to potential legal issues that could be used against him in the future.";

 

"For reasons that I will not list here (I want to give Mr. Carr more than enough metaphorical rope to hang himself with) ...";

 

Claiming that I am "running a high tech counterfeiting operation".;

 

"His [dcarr's] style is very much like that of a politician. He doesn't answer the question or gives a very vague answer (relying on logical fallacies and strawmen arguments) and then tries to deflect and pivot to something else. Maybe had he used this talent to run for political office, he could work to revise the law so that it would protect the uninformed while allowing for reasonable amendments to the HPA to allow for artistic expression. Instead he blatantly ignores the law (in my opinion of course)."

"Blatantly" ? Yet another inflammatory descriptor. No laws are being broken.

 

To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

Your statement from earlier in this thread is totally contradictory to your recent statement quoted at the top of this post. And your implication that there is something that could "blow up in my face" is another false implication of dangerous and/or nefarious activity going on.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

Again somewhat contradictory to your quote at the top of this post.

There is apparently no persuading you off of your position. So why would you expect anyone on the other side to be persuaded your way ?

 

This thread has gone beyond absurdity. My head/brain now hurts, and I think I need to leave to protect my sanity.

And still more contradiction to your other post which claimed this thread has been "relaxed".

 

Yes, I'm sure that the right to counterfeit or otherwise emulate official coins, currency, or other government obligations was among the natural rights that the framers of the Declaration of Independence found unalienable. Of course, you also seem to overlook that our fundamental charter, the U.S. Constitution, expressly delegates Congress (and not DCarr, his supporters, or any other entity) the ability to coin money and to provide for punishment for counterfeiting. It has plainly done so.

I'm not "coining money". I'm altering existing coins for non-fraudulent novelty purposes.

 

You continually seem to be going far out of your way to try and portray what I do as something it isn't.

 

And just because you sometimes used the qualifier "in my opinion", that doesn't make the posts any more civil than they would have been otherwise.

 

Many (but not all) of his [dcarr] supporters ignore the inconvenient or just aren't paying attention.

Insulting a group of coin collectors that disagree with you is no way to win friends (see "Kool-Aid" comment).

 

PS:

Some other things I did not respond to previously:

 

Translation: This is an evolving area of law. While there are clear areas, there are many shades of grey at least insofar as the HPA is concerned.

This is contradictory to your other posts where you claim that the fantasy-date over-strikes are a clear violation.

 

I'm sure their argument will parallel yours - everyone else is doing it!

To be honest, I noticed a spike in non-HPA compliant pieces after you first began producing your fantasy coins.

Confirmation Bias. You started actively looking for such things and so you noticed more. But your implication is faulty and hardly scientific.

 

Have we really come to the point where it will take a court order in a legal proceeding to stop him?

Your implication is false that there is something nefarious going on that needs to be "stopped".

 

I will let my words and positions speak for themselves. This is not personal, in my opinion (and I believe it is supported by case law) you are running a high tech counterfeiting operation. Yes, if I had my way, I would deprive you of the ability to produce your fantasy coins (unless they were marked as required by the HPA).

A "high tech counterfeiting operation" of "fantasy coins" ? Read that back to yourself. It is an oxymoron.

 

My point is that if Dan is so convinced that his pieces are legal and he has made representations on his website concerning the legality of the pieces (including the incredulous claim that the coins need not comply with the HPA) then you would think he would want a judicial declaration to protect him. If not and he is wrong (which he is), then he is disseminating false and misleading information adding icing to the cupcake.

Strange that you would refer to me as "Dan", even though you claim this isn't "personal". We are not on a first name basis. I don't even know or use your first (or last) name since you have not disclosed it in any of your posts (that I am aware of).

 

The adjective "incredulous" was not necessary, but added for dramatic effect, apparently. Also, the supposed "icing to the cupcake" is but a mirage.

Edited by dcarr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764 posts

Mr. Carr,

Until the issue of your fantasy pieces without the word COPY is resolved legally, this will never go away and each person has every right to register their opinion for or against and just because their opinion differs with yours does not make it 'false or intentionally inflammatory'. Also, it is the nature of discussions on the boards to be 'dramatic' as you suggest coinman has been, you mean to tell me none of your posts have any dramatic flair? (shrug)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
945 posts

I don't fit this thread and consider the legal aspects discussed here boring and probably not relevant to me. Maybe I'll start some new threads. zzz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,304 posts

We are all doing a great job of increasing Mr. Carr's sales. I'm sure he loves it. Wish I could advertise my business for free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
I think you may have missed the point - unless you are saying it cannot get any worse, so there is no reason to be cordial.

 

I think I have been incredibly cordial. :) I think this thread has largely been both civil and relaxed.

 

No, I do not agree.

You have chosen words and phrases which are intentionally inflammatory (and false).

 

Such as:

 

Describing my activities as "brazen";

 

"Mr. Carr is above the law. There really is nothing more to be said.";

 

Referring to me as one of the "individuals that try to 'lawyer' their way around the rules ";

 

"The double standard is yet another one of Dcarr's fantasies";

 

Telling my "supporters" to "Keep drinking the Kool-Aid";

 

Characterizing this discussion with "I think I'm done with this lunacy";

 

"Why help him [dcarr] out and give him any more free advice at this point? If anything, you are only alerting him to potential legal issues that could be used against him in the future.";

 

"For reasons that I will not list here (I want to give Mr. Carr more than enough metaphorical rope to hang himself with) ...";

 

Claiming that I am "running a high tech counterfeiting operation".;

 

"His [dcarr's] style is very much like that of a politician. He doesn't answer the question or gives a very vague answer (relying on logical fallacies and strawmen arguments) and then tries to deflect and pivot to something else. Maybe had he used this talent to run for political office, he could work to revise the law so that it would protect the uninformed while allowing for reasonable amendments to the HPA to allow for artistic expression. Instead he blatantly ignores the law (in my opinion of course)."

"Blatantly" ? Yet another inflammatory descriptor. No laws are being broken.

 

To get around the risks of it blowing up in his face, strategies were discussed in another thread for him. The tone of those threads was more relaxed than this thread.

Your statement from earlier in this thread is totally contradictory to your recent statement quoted at the top of this post. And your implication that there is something that could "blow up in my face" is another false implication of dangerous and/or nefarious activity going on.

 

It is sad that people cannot discuss things civilly and use logic and reason to persuade others and resolve differences rather than filing lawsuits or regulatory complaints. Must this literally turn into a federal case to stop him?

Again somewhat contradictory to your quote at the top of this post.

There is apparently no persuading you off of your position. So why would you expect anyone on the other side to be persuaded your way ?

 

This thread has gone beyond absurdity. My head/brain now hurts, and I think I need to leave to protect my sanity.

And still more contradiction to your other post which claimed this thread has been "relaxed".

 

Yes, I'm sure that the right to counterfeit or otherwise emulate official coins, currency, or other government obligations was among the natural rights that the framers of the Declaration of Independence found unalienable. Of course, you also seem to overlook that our fundamental charter, the U.S. Constitution, expressly delegates Congress (and not DCarr, his supporters, or any other entity) the ability to coin money and to provide for punishment for counterfeiting. It has plainly done so.

I'm not "coining money". I'm altering existing coins for non-fraudulent novelty purposes.

 

You continually seem to be going far out of your way to try and portray what I do as something it isn't.

 

And just because you sometimes used the qualifier "in my opinion", that doesn't make the posts any more civil than they would have been otherwise.

 

Many (but not all) of his [dcarr] supporters ignore the inconvenient or just aren't paying attention.

Insulting a group of coin collectors that disagree with you is no way to win friends (see "Kool-Aid" comment).

 

 

All, when viewed in the original context of the thread I was replying to, were appropriate and well justified. When some of your supporters go to the point of using defenses such as "[the HPA isn't a] law worthy of [their] support" or proclaiming that the right to emulate U.S. coin and currency is protected by the Declaration of Independence, this thread has spiraled into insanity.

 

 

PS:

Some other things I did not respond to previously:

 

Translation: This is an evolving area of law. While there are clear areas, there are many shades of grey at least insofar as the HPA is concerned.

This is contradictory to your other posts where you claim that the fantasy-date over-strikes are a clear violation.

 

This particular thread went beyond your pieces and discussed the HPA generally. There are grey areas. I don't think the fantasy pieces fall within a grey area, and I think this is clear cut. There is no contradiction.

 

I'm sure their argument will parallel yours - everyone else is doing it!

To be honest, I noticed a spike in non-HPA compliant pieces after you first began producing your fantasy coins.

Confirmation Bias. You started actively looking for such things and so you noticed more. But your implication is faulty and hardly scientific.

 

I never represented this as a scientific poll. What is your point exactly?

 

 

Have we really come to the point where it will take a court order in a legal proceeding to stop him?

Your implication is false that there is something nefarious going on that needs to be "stopped".

 

I will let my words and positions speak for themselves. This is not personal, in my opinion (and I believe it is supported by case law) you are running a high tech counterfeiting operation. Yes, if I had my way, I would deprive you of the ability to produce your fantasy coins (unless they were marked as required by the HPA).

A "high tech counterfeiting operation" of "fantasy coins" ? Read that back to yourself. It is an oxymoron.

 

I stand by everything I said, and I think it is accurate. I guess you do not like it when people cut through the fluff and attempts to muddy the water to arrive at a logical and obvious conclusion. Whether a thread is civil or cordial is relative, and I think under the circumstances, it was still incredibly tame.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,314 posts

 

"I think I have been incredibly cordial."

 

 

 

Yes, I am sure you do. What could be more cordial than a relentless crusade to bend Carr's will to your own?

 

You do not seem to have much faith in the law or those who enforce it. At the very least, you must be somewhat, if not very, concerned that the FTC will never address the matter to your satisfaction or you would not use your own interpretations of the law in an attempt to intimidate and manipulate Carr.

 

On the other hand, perhaps I have too much faith in the law because I believe they would have acted on the matter a long time ago if they considered Carr’s operation a serious threat to the numismatic community.

 

And, yes, I also believe I have been incredibly cordial. I also realize it may not seem that way to everyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392 posts

Absolutely ~ Keep up the good work !

 

1964-D Peace Dollar, all marked and shown as 'fantasy' strikes:

 

Last ebay sale for die pair 6 prooflike was $372

" die pair 5 high luster was $475

" die pair 5 bulk handled was $262

" ANACS 64 was $487

" ANACS 68 was $550

 

No too shabby for secondary market sales. No doubt that the 1964-D Morgan will do at least equally as well....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,108 posts
Absolutely ~ Keep up the good work !

 

1964-D Peace Dollar, all marked and shown as 'fantasy' strikes:

 

Last ebay sale for die pair 6 prooflike was $372

" die pair 5 high luster was $475

" die pair 5 bulk handled was $262

" ANACS 64 was $487

" ANACS 68 was $550

 

No too shabby for secondary market sales. No doubt that the 1964-D Morgan will do at least equally as well....

 

What do you mean by "marked" as "fantasy" strikes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts
Absolutely ~ Keep up the good work !

 

1964-D Peace Dollar, all marked and shown as 'fantasy' strikes:

 

Last ebay sale for die pair 6 prooflike was $372

" die pair 5 high luster was $475

" die pair 5 bulk handled was $262

" ANACS 64 was $487

" ANACS 68 was $550

 

No too shabby for secondary market sales. No doubt that the 1964-D Morgan will do at least equally as well....

 

What do you mean by "marked" as "fantasy" strikes?

 

I'm guessing in the auction description

 

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392 posts

Sorry, the terminology was mine. The certified examples were sold showing the term "Token" as is on the ANACS certification label.

 

The uncertified examples were sold showing the Daniel Carr term "Modern Overstrike" as is on the label he issues.

 

No intent to imply that the items themselves were marked in any manner other than how they were sold. Simply replying to Idhair's post and I still think he is still absoutely correct.

 

Just trying to make a comment and forgot how toxic this subject is here. No more posts from me.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,108 posts
Sorry, the terminology was mine. The certified examples were sold showing the term "Token" as is on the ANACS certification label.

 

The uncertified examples were sold showing the Daniel Carr term "Modern Overstrike" as is on the label he issues.

 

No intent to imply that the items themselves were marked in any manner other than how they were sold. Simply replying to Idhair's post and I still think he is still absoutely correct.

 

Just trying to make a comment and forgot how toxic this subject is here. No more posts from me.

 

 

 

Not a problem and thanks. Please post as you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts

@Afterword

 

There is no attempted manipulation or intimidation. If I were trying to accomplish either, it would not be done via a message board as there are far more effective ways to do that. More over I doubt anyone would be even remotely intimidated by my presentation even if it were my intent to do so (and it is not).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts

That's the third time in a one month period that I heard that the NGC boards were toxic. One was from the OFR, once at a show and another via e-mail.

 

I wouldn't discount it

 

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764 posts

I think 'toxic' is overstating. I think 'lively debate' on a controversial topic is what is going on in this thread which I believe is healthy for the discipline of numismatics. This can't happen ATS, no one dares to engage in such perceived 'vitriol' for fear of being banned. Carry on everyone, use your free speech here, just don't resort to name calling.

 

Best, HT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,304 posts
I think 'toxic' is overstating. I think 'lively debate' on a controversial topic is what is going on in this thread which I believe is healthy for the discipline of numismatics. This can't happen ATS, no one dares to engage in such perceived 'vitriol' for fear of being banned. Carry on everyone, use your free speech here, just don't resort to name calling.

 

Best, HT

I agree. It's just honest talk and I also feel it's healthy for the hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
664 posts

Beautiful work! If I had known about them I should have bought one of each as the Mint missed a chance to make them. I'll bet the designs will be struck in silver by the U.S. Mint next year!

 

If I had one, I would shave off the edge inscription so just the design of the coin remained. My guess is they are too thick to fool anyone who knows coins. You can bet that someone, at some time, will cut the dime down, split it and put the two halves back together and stick the piece in a Capitol holder. SO WHAT! I'm not one to ruin beautiful objects of the coiners art with the word "copy" just to save a few uninformed people. There would not be a HPA if I had a say! I was against it in '72 and have not changed my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14,297 posts
Beautiful work! If I had known about them I should have bought one of each as the Mint missed a chance to make them. I'll bet the designs will be struck in silver by the U.S. Mint next year!

 

If I had one, I would shave off the edge inscription so just the design of the coin remained. My guess is they are too thick to fool anyone who knows coins. You can bet that someone, at some time, will cut the dime down, split it and put the two halves back together and stick the piece in a Capitol holder. SO WHAT! I'm not one to ruin beautiful objects of the coiners art with the word "copy" just to save a few uninformed people. There would not be a HPA if I had a say! I was against it in '72 and have not changed my mind.

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,083 posts
Beautiful work! If I had known about them I should have bought one of each as the Mint missed a chance to make them. I'll bet the designs will be struck in silver by the U.S. Mint next year!

 

If I had one, I would shave off the edge inscription so just the design of the coin remained. My guess is they are too thick to fool anyone who knows coins. You can bet that someone, at some time, will cut the dime down, split it and put the two halves back together and stick the piece in a Capitol holder. SO WHAT! I'm not one to ruin beautiful objects of the coiners art with the word "copy" just to save a few uninformed people. There would not be a HPA if I had a say! I was against it in '72 and have not changed my mind.

 

Yet I'm sure that someone like you would be the first to point to consumer protection laws whenever it benefitted them personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,025 posts

Perhaps a mandatory recall is in order. :sumo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,689 posts
Are some of you on a anti- membership drive? Trying to keep this place all to yourselves? There are like 12 active posters here and you want to drive half of these posters away and discourage new ones from engaging. Mr Knowitall is like a one man haranguing wrecking crew. Suggestion to the new guys and anyone who wants to keep their sanity----stop replying to him.

 

mark

 

 

I was worried about this before and I'm certainly am now.

 

Anyways my advise remains the same

 

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,589 posts
Are some of you on a anti- membership drive? Trying to keep this place all to yourselves? There are like 12 active posters here and you want to drive half of these posters away and discourage new ones from engaging. Mr Knowitall is like a one man haranguing wrecking crew. Suggestion to the new guys and anyone who wants to keep their sanity----stop replying to him.

 

mark

 

I was worried about this before and I'm certainly am now.

 

Anyways my advise remains the same

 

mark

 

Good advice and it's a legitimate worry. Larry's been a long time contributor and if he's leaving because of this, it's worth some thought on how the forums have changed and if course correction is warranted. His post in the other thread echos my own thoughts about how these forums are no longer fun. "Toxic" as mentioned earlier is fitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1